Wednesday, August 31, 2005

...Chickenhawk refers to those who are pro-war but have never served in the military. I don't like the term. It's designed to silence debate.

By using the 'Chickenhawk' label, you assume that the only moral authority to have an opinion about war comes from those that have served.

Well, then, is someone that served in the military but not combat, a half-Chickenhawk?

How about someone that spent one month fighting in GW1 versus someone who slugged it out during OIF for a year?

How do you weigh the opinion of a Marine with three seven month tours versus a 3rd Infantry Division Soldier with two twelve month tours?

And, then, eventually, we'll come to the conclusion that the only one to make a decision about combat is the highest decorated veteran alive (Colonel Bud Day, I believe). Let's let him make all of our decisions for us...

I don't know many military men or women out there who would want military service to be the singular defining characteristic of citizenship. We appreciate those that have served, and maybe they're a little higher up the food chain in our eyes, but to say that you have to serve to have an opinion is, basically, [expletive deleted].

For instance, Presidents with combat experience have gotten us into more problems that ones without (how's THAT for a premise). Kennedy (WWII Vet), Truman (WWI Vet)..."

Monday, August 29, 2005

Vox Day wanted someone to show him where he was wrong in criticizing Ben Shapiro's arguments. In my critique of Day's original article, I very generally noted that Day was at points misrepresenting what Shapiro obviously meant; here I will point out specific errors and misstatements:

Mr. Shapiro's first argument against the appellation is that it is nothing more than a leftist attempt to silence debate. This is partially true....

No, Day's mischaracterization of Shapiro's comments is partially true. Shapiro wrote, "The bulk of the left in this country refuses to argue about foreign policy rationally, without resorting to ad hominem attack" (Day does not refute this--he agrees with it). Shapiro is here writing about most on the Left; he is not addressing the Right, the Middle, or Vox Day (wherever he might be; judging from the generally condescending tone of his rhetoric, he would probably place himself Above).

Regardless of from where the personal attack comes, argumentum ad hominem is in itself almost always used either to distract, obfuscate, prejudice, manipulate, or shame; it is never relevant to the merits of a particular argument (unless that argument is about a specific person).

His second and third arguments are that the insult is dishonest and "explicitly rejects the Constitution." But there is nothing dishonest about calling into question the credibility of one who does not practice what he preaches.

It is dishonest if one is to honestly represent or rationally evaluate the merits of a specific argument.

(As noted previously) Besides that, Day is not referring to the definition of "dishonest" Shapiro apparently was using, who wrote:

" It is dishonest because the principle of republicanism is based on freedom of choice about behavior (as long as that behavior is legal) as well as freedom of speech about political issues....Representative democracy necessarily means that millions of us vote on issues with which we have had little practical experience. The "chickenhawk" argument – which states that if you haven't served in the military, you can't have an opinion on foreign policy – explicitly rejects basic principles of representative democracy."

Perhaps Shapiro should have used in place of "dishonest," something like, "inconsistent with an important aspect of representative democracy." Day continues:

If a CNBC analyst urges viewers to buy a stock he is secretly shorting, he will rightly be dismissed as a hypocrite unworthy of further regard.

The appropriate value in raising questions about a speaker's credibility lies only in that any doubt regarding their integrity should cause the hearer to discern even more carefully the merits of the argument; a speaker's questionable credibility does not necessarily reflect the merits of what they say.

The unconstitutional argument is spectacularly silly, since no one in Congress has proposed a federal law barring such hypocrites from office. One can only assume that Mr. Shapiro's first Constitutional Law class lies ahead of him.

Here again, Day is either reading carelessly or intentionally misrepresenting Shapiro's language (so that he might take another cheap shot at Shapiro?).

In referring to the Constitution, Shapiro was referring to the Left's position that unless one has served, one cannot have an opinion on the use of military force. This contradicts the Constitution's provision for civilian control of the military. Shapiro did not say the use of "chickenhawk" was unconstitutional in the legal sense, as Day implies. Here are Shapiro's actual words:

The "chickenhawk" argument also explicitly rejects the Constitution itself. The Constitution provides that civilians control the military. The president of the United States is commander in chief, whether or not he has served in the military. Congress controls the purse strings and declares war, no matter whether any of its members have served in the military or not. For foreign policy doves to high-handedly declare that military service is a prerequisite to a hawkish foreign policy mindset is not only dangerous, but directly conflicts with the Constitution itself.

Day continues:

His fourth argument, which asserts that use of the term is somehow "un-American," reveals a similar failure to understand the First Amendment and American history. Mr. Shapiro might wish the Constitution prevented people from calling him names, but it actually protects their right to do so and American political history is littered with an abundance of inventive insults.

Obviously, Day is taking the term "American" in a sense different from that intended by Shapiro. This is in itself either intellectually dishonest or [just] lazy. Shapiro's actual words make this clear:

Last week, I explained why the "chickenhawk" argument undermines fundamental values of representative democracy, as well as the constitutional idea of civilian control over the military.

Essentially, Shapiro was defining "un-American" in terms of two of his earlier points.

Day goes on:

His fifth and final argument – that use of the term "chickenhawk" is an attempt to avoid substantive debate – is easily disproved.

Shapiro was talking about the Left's use of the term; he was not discussing Day's use of it.

In Day's implicit endorsement of the comments from a reader of his 'blog which include the observation, "Even a broken clock is right twice a day," he demonstrates the (usually) fallacious nature of argumentum ad hominem--a person's argument should be judged on the merits of the argument, not on who is making it.

The genuine flaw in the use of the "chickenhawk" label is that in most cases it is being applied years, even decades, after the fact, and inherently attempts to equate two different historical situations.

The real flaw in Day's article (whether or not Shapiro is actually a chickenhawk), is that he took up the pen at all to give him (as he puts it) a well-deserved "spanking."

I am only one of many non-pacifist, non-leftist Americans who believe that Mr. Shapiro would do well to heed his own words of Aug. 26, 2004. "Now's the time: Either put up, or shut the hell up."

Perhaps Mr. Shapiro can sign up to serve with Mr. Day wherever he is currently stationed (unless VD's currently enjoying a "bath" somewhere on the California coast).

Verse IISpeaking of protesting too much...

Ben Shapiro wrote two columns arguing why the anti-war Left's use of the term "chickenhawk" is improper. The first article on "chickenhawk" argued that using the term is intellectually dishonest in discussing the merits of the Iraq War, and the Left use it because they don't have anything substantial to add to the public discourse.

It is and they don't.

In his second article, Shapiro continued his argument against the Left's use of name-calling.

Vox Day wrote an (apparently unprovoked) article calling him a "chickenhawk" and trying to point out why Shapiro's arguments against the term are invalid.

After reading both of Shapiro's articles, one must wonder, "Where did the author criticize (or even mention) Vox Day?" Mr. Shapiro specifically cites the emptiness of the anti-war Left who resort to ad hominem attacks out of desperation, mean-spiritedness, and their hatred for President Bush. Unless there are some behind-the-scenes insults or reproaches to which I am not privy, Day's response to Shapiro is unjustified.

[Guest MikeT courteously points out that Day is responding to Shapiro's call for more pre-emptive action in other nations--for an American Empire; he should criticize that instead.]

And rather than admit he went too far (or just stop), Day tried to justify his inappropriately public and uncharitable rebuke of one of his colleagues in a response to some of my comments.

The use of "chickenhawk" he defends is only valid against particular persons, nothing else. Its use does not demonstrate that person's arguments to be false, which was Shapiro's point in the two columns cited in Day's tirade. That sort of a false argument[ation] is unbecoming someone of Day's [. . .] stature.

No matter how valid his criticisms of any expansion of our "War Against Extremism" might be (or any other action Shapiro might advocate), Day's personal attack against him only weakens the moral force of his own arguments and damages his own reputation.

If the point of the debate is whether or not the military should engage in a certain operation, then make that argument. If the point is that those who do not serve should refrain from calling for more warfare, then make that argument. If the point is that Shapiro is a hypocrite and should do something about it or be quiet, state that (privately).

But Day seems more interested in pushing around someone for whom he has little or no respect than addressing whether or not ad hominem attacks are morally-defensible (in almost all cases, they are not). Day's attack of an apparently decent young man comes off as nothing more than vulgar and petty.

His criticism of Shapiro's character would be more appropriate in a private exchange or even on his own 'blog; WorldNetDaily Commentary does not seem the right forum for the puerile schoolyard bullying evident in Day's article. (And no, an imprecise use of language does not make one deserving of public disembowelment. Grammar lessons, perhaps).

If Day's intention was to criticize constructively, he should have done that privately (and if he did do it privately, he should have kept it private).

As for refuting Shapiro, that VD cites himself as an example of where some of Shapiro's arguments fall short only supports his opponent: Day is an exception that proves the rule. He is not part of the vacuous anti-Bush [anti-American] Left, whose use of the tactic Shapiro was criticizing. Neither is he part of the (as Day claims) 95% of people too stupid to get out of their own way (and therefore susceptible to such fallacious argumentation).

Argumentum ad hominem does nothing to further a particular position (unless, of course, the argument is about a specific person); it only cheapens the worth of comments that otherwise might be deserving of consideration, and it lowers the esteem of the speaker in the eyes of fair-minded observers.

So (ironically), in trying to weaken Shapiro's credibility, Day lessens his own.

Verse IIIA line-by-line response

Following is my response to Day's critique of my original post...

I wrote:

If Day's argument is that Shapiro seems defensive, and that this defensiveness reveals a lack of courage, then that is the argument he should make. But the intimation of physical or moral defect on the part of his target is childish and inconsistent with Christ's example.

To which Day responded:

Amil gets right out of the blocks with a blown reading comprehension test. First, that's not my argument. Second, the suggestion of the possibility of a physical or moral defect is far from childish, it is absolutely necessary in order to admit the real possibility that the entire argument does not apply.....

My comment above was obviously a response to Day's introduction only (and I was trying to give Day the benefit of the doubt, of which he is quickly proving himself undeserving).

As indicated by the reference to Shakespeare, he implies Shapiro's repeated criticism of the pejorative is an indication he feels it hits too close to home. VD later calls Shapiro "chickenhawk," "chicken_ _ _ _," and "hypocrite." All of that is unnecessary.

Day here admits that he is attacking Shapiro personally to cast doubt on his argument! Essentially, Day's argument here is: "Shapiro's a chickenhawk, so he's wrong." That's a non sequitur and powerful evidence that Day is victim to his own flawed logic--attacking a person's character (even if the accusations are true) has no actual bearing on the merits of the argument made.

Again, to suggest that hinting at possible physical or character flaws as reasons for Shapiro's lack of service is necessary in refuting his argument is defective reasoning.

Day continued:

I testify to what Shapiro said that was false. His assertion is largely incorrect and is only true in the single context of conservative media commentary, which, ironically enough, features a high percentage of people who many on the Left and Right would consider to be chickenhawks. I took a poll of some of the most extreme right-wing people on the planet - in the last election, Bush came in third behind the Libertarian and Constitution party candidates - and 85 percent believe that the chickenhawk appellation applies to Mr. Shapiro.

And I note that if there is anyone less interested in genuine debate than the conservative commentariat, I have yet to meet them. Malkin was afraid to show even when she was called out in public and asked live on the air to defend her book. I doubt Shapiro has the ... to defend himself or his positions either. Hugh Hewitt won't even permit libertarians on his radio show. Conservative commentators talk a good game as long as they think they're dealing with brain-dead leftists, but they're cowards for the most part. At least the lefties will show up and froth at the mouth for a while. Anyhow, the fact that leftists can't debate properly doesn't mean they won't; you have to remember that to them calling names IS how you debate.

Calling names is how one debates if they're five years old and not very bright, which is part of why Day's public attack is inappropriate and embarrassing.

Day writes that Shapiro's assertion is largely incorrect and only true in a very limited context. As evidence of this he cites the opinions of "the most extreme right-wing people on the planet." Is this a sizeable group of people? If so, why did not the Constitutional or Libertarian candidates win the presidency?

Even if it is a large group of people, Shapiro was writing about the Left's use of "chickenhawk." I nowhere noted his use of the terms "Liberatarians," "Conservatives," or "Moderates" (or even "Vox Day") in his two articles.

(And I doubt Shapiro would criticize its use by one who has served).

Perhaps Day should have read more carefully.

He goes on:

So, Shapiro is demonstrably wrong. My very willingness to debate blows his (and Amil's) talking points-derived notion away. I'm right here... Shapiro and Lowry and all the other war cheerleaders know where I am. Shall we talk about the invasion of Pakistan? Or do you prefer Egypt? To quote our president, Bring It On. And what debate, precisely, is being stifled? From what I've seen, the left seems more than willing to debate the war. President Bush is the one who won't answer any questions.

Here Day demonstrates his carelessness in both reading and reasoning.

I do not have a "talking points-derived notion." I was merely making the point that Day's public personal attack was inappropriate. Some of Shapiro's language may need refinement; in addressing the Left's use of the term (and in taking his words in the ways in which they were obviously intended), he said nothing deserving of the venom issued by Day.

I wrote:

But it is dishonest to personally attack someone rather than expose the fault(s) in their argument. And neither is military service a prerequisite to having a valid opinion on the use of military force.... He was not writing of legislation regarding hypocrites....

To which Day responded:

I did both, so why the word "rather"? There's nothing dishonest about attacking someone, indeed, I'd think the openness would be rather refreshing in light of all the fake Crossfire-style friendliness. An opinion is one thing, a call to action is another. Shapiro wasn't simply expressing his opinion about the war, he was telling Americans what their duty was and what sacrifices they have to make. And Amil is right, Shapiro wasn't talking about legislation, which is precisely why that argument was so phenomenally stupid. Why does the Supreme Court so often wrestling with questions of constitutionality? Why? Because it is the judicial branch! (In other words, it usually involves laws.)

Day did not expose the fault in Shapiro's argument (unless one calls legitimate the refutation of comments taken in a sense other than what the author obviously intended), since Shapiro was addressing the use of "chickenhawk" by the majority of those on the Left, not rare cases like Day.

It is deceptive to attack someone instead of attacking their argument.

I wrote:

An ad hominem attack is intellectually dishonest and therefore immoral. What is immoral is un-American. And Shapiro's reference to the President's daughters was in the context of the Left's misuse of them. He was not misusing them himself.

To which Day replied:

Amil skips over the small matter of the First Amendment rights. And there is nothing intellectually dishonest about an ad hominem attack, it is merely irrelevant if it is not accompanied by a more substantive attack, as this was. Shapiro's intellectual sloppiness appears to be rubbing off here, as the attempt to equate moral with American is a monumental failure of both logic and personal observation. Shapiro brought the daughters up as a red herring defense for himself, so my point is not only funny, but appropriate.

Vox Day is proud of sacrificing his integrity for a laugh? Beautiful.

Day likes to refer to the First Amendment, but that appeal does not make his point any more honorable, appropriate, or true, since the Constitutional guarantee also applies to most forms of immoral[, false, and stupid] speech.

Again, a personal attack is always irrelevant unless the person under attack is the subject of the debate. Shapiro's arguments against the Left's use of "chickenhawk" were the substance of his articles, which Day should have addressed instead.

Finally, Day's intimation that I am completely ignorant of American history is absolutely silly. In this context, I obviously choose to define "America" in terms of its highest ideals and the historically good and noble character of its people.

I've seen only the most craven and wretched of the anti-America/anti-Christ crowd try to paint those actually proud of this nation as blind to its faults and failings; that Vox Day would do the same thing [reeks of desperation and a lack of character].

I wrote:

Name-calling is almost always an attempt to silence opposition or avoid debate (or to discredit the opposition in the minds of those who are easily manipulated). That Day has criticized the War is the exception, not the rule, as most who use such terms have no real intellectually-honest argument to make against the War, they just hate President Bush and/or the military (even if it results in our nation "enjoying" the reign of the Religion of Peace).

On which Day commented:

...Amillenial is only correct about the parenthesized bit, though he leaves out that this group covers 95 percent of the populace so it's rather important if you have any interest in influencing them. Name-calling is primarily shorthand to harm the target for those casual observers, and the more accurate the name the more effective it will be. Given how panicked the chickenhawks are over getting successfully nailed with the name, it's quite obvious that the label is both accurate and effective.

If so many people are so easily deceived, and if Vox Day intends to represent Christ honorably, he should point out falsehood without engaging in it himself. He wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, would he?

The ends do not always justify the means. Using the dishonorable tactics of those who oppose what is in America's best interest is unbecoming someone of honor.

I wrote:

The country needs more intelligent, morally-sound young people who can string together a coherent thought. Perhaps he better serves his nation on his current career path. If Vox Day wants to play with words, he shouldn't do it at the expense of someone who seems to be a decent kid. And liberal use of a thesaurus is no substitute for intellect.

Of which Day observed:

I don't think "coherent" is the synonym for "obvious" that Amil seems to think it is.

I used the term I intended. A cheap shot, now unsurprising from Vox Day.

Day concluded:

If Ben wants to play with the big boys, then he'd better learn to think more carefully and choose his words with more precision. My column today was nothing but a well-earned spanking, perhaps Mr. Shapiro will learn something from it and begin rethinking his asinine calls for empire and sacrifice of liberties.

And Amil, not only do I not use a thesaurus, I don't even use a spell-checker.

"It's not my fault being the biggest and the strongest. I don't even exercise." -Fezzik"Truly, you have a dizzying intellect." -Westley"Wait 'til I get going!" -Vizzini

"I can't compete with you physically, and you're no match for my brains. -Vizzini"You're that smart?" -Westley"Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?" -Vizzini"Yes." -Westley"Morons." -Vizzini

-The Princess Bride (1987)

That Day feels the need to state this perhaps sheds some light on what motivates him to shamelessly attack someone in need only of some maturity and a serious talk, not public evisceration.

(By the way, has anyone else noticed Day's fascination with "bathhouse ___," "big boys," and "spanking"? Perhaps Vox's obsession with Ben Shapiro comes not from his ideas, but his -- eyes.)

Vox Day is an intelligent person with a bully pulpit; he ought to use it to encourage and instruct, not to bully.

Vox Day, a columnist at WorldNetDaily, rather than addressing another columnist's arguments against the use of the term "chickenhawk," attacks him personally in The chickenhawk clucks. He begins:

It is entirely possible that my WND colleague has a perfectly good reason for not serving his country in its moment of need.

Day should have stopped there. What follows is completely unnecessary and suggests that Vox has his own issues needing resolution.

Besides that, military service is not the only front on which the War of Self-Defense Against Islam needs to be waged. The moral rectitude of our Cause also must be vigorously defended, especially when so many of those who will also be under Islam's blade are dishonorably and dishonestly attacking our fighting at all.

If Day's argument is that Shapiro seems defensive, and that this defensiveness reveals a lack of courage, then that is the argument he should make. But the intimation of physical or moral defect on the part of his target is childish and inconsistent with Christ's example (Whom Day claims to follow).(When certain self-styled intellectual and moral experts engaged in ad Hominem attacks against Him two millennia past, Jesus encouraged them to testify to what He said that was false. That's still good advice, even to Day.)

Mr. Shapiro's first argument against the appellation is that it is nothing more than a leftist attempt to silence debate. This is partially true, but the argument is deceptive because it is incomplete. It is not leftists but the military that has long despised civilians who clamor for war from the safety of their homes. In 1879, Gen. William Sherman said: "It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation."

I doubt that Shapiro would argue that members of the military cannot use the term (and anyone who serves on the battlefield deserves the highest honors his or her fellow citizens can bestow); his assertion that the use of "chickenhawk" is "a leftist attempt to silence debate" is in most contexts today true, which is the context in which Shapiro was making it.It is intellectually dishonest of Day to imply otherwise.

His second and third arguments are that the insult is dishonest and "explicitly rejects the Constitution." But there is nothing dishonest about calling into question the credibility of one who does not practice what he preaches. If a CNBC analyst urges viewers to buy a stock he is secretly shorting, he will rightly be dismissed as a hypocrite unworthy of further regard. The unconstitutional argument is spectacularly silly, since no one in Congress has proposed a federal law barring such hypocrites from office. One can only assume that Mr. Shapiro's first Constitutional Law class lies ahead of him.

But it is dishonest to personally attack someone rather than expose the fault(s) in their argument. And neither is military service a prerequisite to having a valid opinion on the use of military force.As for the "Constitutional argument," it appears Mr. Shapiro was arguing that to imply without military service one is disqualified from having a valid opinion on war is inconsistent with the Constitution's own principle of civilian control of the military.He was not writing of legislation regarding hypocrites that violates the Constitution, as Day jests. Now that's silly.

His fourth argument, which asserts that use of the term is somehow "un-American," reveals a similar failure to understand the First Amendment and American history. Mr. Shapiro might wish the Constitution prevented people from calling him names, but it actually protects their right to do so and American political history is littered with an abundance of inventive insults. As for the reference to the Bush daughters, hiding behind the skirts of young women is no way to prove you're not a coward.

An ad hominem attack is intellectually dishonest and therefore immoral. What is immoral is un-American. And Shapiro's reference to the President's daughters was in the context of the Left's misuse of them. He was not misusing them himself.

His fifth and final argument – that use of the term "chickenhawk" is an attempt to avoid substantive debate – is easily disproved. I have repeatedly criticized numerous aspects of this global struggle, have openly opposed both the Iraqi and Afghani occupations, and am quite willing to debate Mr. Shapiro or anyone else on the issue in the forum of their preference. Yet I – like 62 percent of the soldiers and veterans who frequent Vox Popoli and Blackfive – am in accord with the notion that "chickenhawk" is an appropriate label for a warmongering young columnist who urges others to make sacrifices he has no intention of making himself.

Name-calling is almost always an attempt to silence opposition or avoid debate (or to discredit the opposition in the minds of those who are easily manipulated). That Day has criticized the War is the exception, not the rule, as most who use such terms have no real intellectually-honest argument to make against the War, they just hate President Bush and/or the military (even if it results in our nation "enjoying" the reign of the Religion of Peace).

The genuine flaw in the use of the "chickenhawk" label is that in most cases it is being applied years, even decades, after the fact, and inherently attempts to equate two different historical situations. However, due to Mr. Shapiro's precocious position in the national media, this common flaw does not apply. While his peers are dodging sniper bullets and IEDs in Afghanistan and Iraq, Mr. Shapiro is bravely urging them to invade five more countries in the establishment of global empire from the safety of his Harvard dorm room.

American Empire is immoral; self-defense against Jihad is not. That aside, Day's argument sounds petty.

The America [sic] Bar Association already boasts more than 896,000 lawyers, America has no desperate need for another one. The U.S. Army, on the other hand, is currently 8,000 men short of its 2005 recruiting goals. I am only one of many non-pacifist, non-leftist Americans who believe that Mr. Shapiro would do well to heed his own words of Aug. 26, 2004. "Now's the time: Either put up, or shut the hell up."

The country needs more intelligent, morally-sound young people who can string together a coherent thought. Perhaps he better serves his nation on his current career path.

If Vox Day wants to play with words,he shouldn't do it at the expense of someone who seems to be a decent kid.

I would repectfully recommend you read The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), by Robert Spencer. Having him as a guest on your program to discuss his book would be very helpful to restoring your credibility on the topics of Islam and The War Against Extremism. It would also better equip those (apparently few) members of your audience unfamiliar with the real Islam to defend themselves against an ancient and ruthless foe.

I would also respectfully suggest that your reliance on "theologians" to answer the question of whether or not Christians and Muslims worship the same deity reveals the same unfamiliarity with Qur'anic Islam (as opposed to CAIRic Islam) you displayed when you gave a spokesman from that Jihadist organization a platform on your show.

It is blasphemy to try to equate Christ with Allah, and only deceit or ignorance would make such an effort. Because a counterfeit religion tries to gain acceptance by leeching onto the Faith "once for all delivered to the saints," we should accept their claims uncritically? Would you give Mormonism that consideration? Would you allow Jehovah's Witnesses the same courtesy? Why then why would you swallow whole the falsehoods of a religion that has historically slaughtered those unwilling to submit to its ideology?

Any elementary (and honest) comparison between the Qur'an and the Bible would reveal that if it is the same god Christians and Muslims worship, that god is either a liar, a weakling, or insane:

The Bible tells us our Father said of Jesus, "This is My beloved Son; listen to Him." Jesus confirmed Peter's confession of Him as the Son of God.

The Qur'an says that anyone who says Allah has a son is an unbeliever.

Both religions' claims are mutually-exclusive. Either one is true and the other false, or the other is true and the former false, or both are false, but both cannot be true. If it is the same god, then that god is either wickedly deceitful, unable to preserve his word, or mentally unstable.

If the Bible is true, Allah is lying. If the Qur'an is true, YHWH and His Christ lie.

A comparison of the two religions' founders also reveals why Christians and Muslims cannot be worshiping the same god:

Jesus said, "Love your enemies."

Mohammed said, "Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them."

Jesus healed the sick, raised the dead, and committed no sin.

Mohammed was a murderous, deceitful pedophile. (Lest you try to accuse me of an "extreme" position, Mohammed killed, maimed, and had assassinated thousands of people, taught and practiced "War is deceit," and consummated his marriage to his six-year-old bride when she was nine. All this is recorded in Islam's own accepted traditions).

The two religions' histories also reveal they serve very different gods:

The Church was slaughtered for centuries after its founding, "turning the world upside down" and expressing the love of Christ in word and deed.

Have the courage to face Qur'anic Islam honestly and clearly. Yes, the implications of a religion whose text commands its billion-plus followers to fight against, subdue, and kill "unbelievers" is frightening, but what is the alternative? Hide our heads in the sand until we have no heads left to hide? (Beheading is commanded by Allah.)

Monday, August 22, 2005

I have been a steadfast and ardent supporter of you in both your presidential campaigns. I contributed financially to your re-election. I have defended you in numerous political discussions, even to the point of enduring abuse for it.

Mr. President, if we are to succeed in the War Against Extremism, we must recognize the enemy. From your public statements, those of Dr. Rice, and the apparent establishment of Sharia in Iraq, it seems that you do not recognize that our current conflict is just the latest phase of the ancient struggle against Jihad.

Since Mohammed, Islam has waged war against those whom it considers infidels. Historically (and according to the Qur'an, Hadith, and Islamic jurisprudence), the non-Muslim has only these choices under Islam: convert, submit (and pay the jizya), or die. This may seem a politically-incorrect thing to say, but it is true.

Allah commands the faithful Muslim to, "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5), "...fight...the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya" (Qur'an 9:29), and, "...fight...until all religion is for Allah" (Qur'an 8:39).

Jihad has raged for fourteen centuries. Today it is being carried out all around the world. It will not end as long as people believe the Qur'an is the word of a god.

Mr. President, unless and until we recognize the enemy and expose it for what it is, we will lose this war. We cannot waste one American life to establish in another country the religion that is trying to convert, subdue, or kill us, for that is what we are doing in Iraq now, as is clear from the work of our ambassador there and the apparent conclusion of their efforts to draft a constitution--the establishment of Sharia.

This inability or unwillingness to recognize the truth about Islam is not new. It has been blinding United States' policy for several administrations.

-Arming, training and using Nato airforce to help KLA islamic terrorists in Kosovo and Bosnia [X]Check

-Funding Palestine islamic thugs [X]Check

-Pressuring Europe to integrate Turkey [X] Check

-Pressuring Israel to relinquish its land and make concession after concession [X] Check

-Sacrifice US service men & women as well as billions of dollars to erect an Islamic Iraqi state [X)Check

-Being best buddies with the Saudis [X] Check

One got to wonder what it would be like if the US was not at war with terrorism.

You were right to urge Americans to refrain from punishing innocent Muslims in the United States. You were right to attack the Taliban. You were right to go after Saddam and his WMD (no doubt sent to Syria). It was noble to require that our military restrain their use of force to protect innocent Iraqis (even to their own detriment). You were right to believe that the rectitude of Liberty would inspire that nation and those around it. Under your leadership, our nation has had many great successes.

However, all of that will be for nothing if we do not recognize the enemy.

-Do not waste all of that effort, and blood, and money by failing to recognize what motivates our enemy (the teachings of Mohammed and his god).

-Recognize the "extremists" for what they are (faithful to Allah's numerous commands to fight against, convert, subdue, and kill unbelievers).

-Combat their ideology (with what? I don't know, since the Qur'an cannot be used effectively to refute itself).

-Stop trying to equate Judaism/Christianity with Islam.

-Stop pressuring Israel to surrender to Islam (in the form of the "Palestinians," whose stated goal is to wipe Israel from the face of the earth).

-Stop wasting American blood and dollars to build another Sharia state.

All that begins by telling the truth: the "extremists" are really just following the fundamentals of Islam and imitating its founder, Mohammed, in their use of violence against unbelievers. It is the truly "moderate" Muslim (and not the one practicing taqiyya or kitman) that misrepresents the Qur'an. The "Islamofascists" (or whatever other indirect term one might use) are those who are obeying Allah in their duty to fight against the Infidel.

It is clear from your past comments that you consider Allah to be the same god as the God of the Bible. Are you aware that Allah says in his Qur'an that anyone who says God has a Son is an unbeliever? That would mean he is saying your Lord (and mine) is an unbeliever because He said of Himself, "I am the Son of God." Would the God of the Bible call His Only Son "an unbeliever"?

When you equate the God of the Bible with the god of the Qur'an, you not only reveal a deadly unfamiliarity with the Qur'an, but you also lie about the true God. When you equate the words of the Qur'an with the Sermon on the Mount, you not only lie about Christ, but you endanger the souls of those who might hope in Him and so be saved.

Islam is not like Christianity. Allah is not like YHWH. The Qur'an is in no way, shape, or form comparable to the Holy Scriptures. Mohammed is no comparison to Jesus Christ.

Mr. President, I urge you and all your Administration to learn about the nature and history of Islam. A site like JihadWatch is an excellent resource. The book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), by Robert Spencer is a great new primer on the real Islam, not the one groups like CAIR (several of whose members have been indicted on and/or convicted of terrorism-related crimes) would have us think it is, to our own great harm.

I know you are a caring and faithful man. I know you do not send thoughtlessly young American men and women to risk life and limb. This is a war we must fight, or we will fall to Islam, just as Christian lands fell in ancient times.

If you will recognize the nature of Islam and tell the truth about it publicly, you will begin the (in some ways, much more difficult) ideological struggle against Jihad.

On America

Miracle in four words

Don't jump to any conclusions

Multiculturalism: Civilizational suicide

"A culture that gave the world the novel; the music of Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert; and the paintings of Michelangelo, da Vinci, and Rembrandt does not need lessons from societies whose idea of heaven, peopled with female virgins, resembles a cosmic brothel. Nor does the West need lectures on the superior virtue of societies in which women are kept in subjection under sharia, endure genital mutilation, are stoned to death for alleged adultery, and are married off against their will at the age of nine ...."

On the fall of Constantinople

"[...] the great church of Hagia Sophia was filled to capacity. Thousands of people were moving towards the church. Inside, Orthodox and Catholic priests were holding liturgy, the last Christian service after almost 1,000 years. People were singing hymns, others were openly crying, others were asking each other for forgiveness [...].

"Bands of Ottoman soldiers began now looting. Doors were broken, private homes were looted, their tenants were massacred. Shops in the city markets were looted. Monasteries and Convents were broken in. Their tenants were killed, nuns were raped; many, to avoid dishonor, killed themselves. Killing, raping, looting, burning, enslaving, went on and on [...].

"The great doors of Hagia Sophia were forced open, and crowds of angry soldiers came in and fell upon the unfortunate worshippers. Pillaging and killing in the holy place went on for hours. Similar was the fate of worshippers in most churches in the city [...].

"Thousands of civilians were enslaved, soldiers fought over young boys and young women [...] the invaders broke the heads of those women who resisted on the floor of the churches and they raped them dead. The famous icon of Apostole Loukas was totally destroyed.

"The sultan asked for the young sons of Duke Loukas Notaras. Their father refused and Mehmed was ready to take their heads. Notaras asked him to kill him after his sons so that he was sure that they were dead and not disgraced from the pervert sultan.

Fighting the Unnecessary War

"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.

"There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves."

Defend Geert Wilders

Europe facilitates shari'a's advance by persecuting non-Muslims who tell the truth about Islam.

Defending Mr. Wilders is a defense of Western Civilization.

Never surrender

"we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone [...].

"we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end [...] we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender [...]."

Speaking the truth in love

"If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion [of] the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at the moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ.

"Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved. And to be steady on all the battlefield besides is merely flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point."

The distance between Heaven and hell

"And he [Jesus] declared, that the enjoyment of felicity in the world hereafter, would be reward of the practice of benevolence here. His whole law was resolvable into the precept of love; peace on earth – good will toward man, was the early object of his mission; and the authoritative demonstration of the immortality of man, was that, which constituted the more than earthly tribute of glory to God in the highest [...] The first conquest of the religion of Jesus, was over the unsocial passions of his disciples. It elevated the standard of the human character in the scale of existence. [...] On the Christian system of morals, man is an immortal spirit, confined for a short space of time, in an earthly tabernacle. Kindness to his fellow mortals embraces the whole compass of his duties upon earth, and the whole promise of happiness to his spirit hereafter. THE ESSENCE OF THIS DOCTRINE IS, TO EXALT THE SPIRITUAL OVER THE BRUTAL PART OF HIS NATURE.

[...]

“In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE

[...]

"Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant. [...] While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.”

On the heresy and bloodlust of Mahomet

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

"A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property -- either as a child, a wife, or a concubine -- must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science -- the science against which it had vainly struggled -- the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

On American Liberty

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

"The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."